Janklow trial fall-out... Diabetics should not have drivers' licenses??

[SoCalDem]

on CNN, they were just reporting on the trial and someone said that "because of his diabetes, and the fact that he had not eaten, he was "impaired", so maybe "people like that should not have licenses".. Just Greaaaaaat.. Some wacko who has a leadfoot and lousy judgement is going to try and set a precedent that diabetes made him do it....

Of course in California, we COULD use less drivers, but I would hate to have to chauffeur my husband around..(he also has diabetes, but has never run down a motorcyclist)..:eyes:

[Cocoa]

1. this defense should be the subject of much ridicule

epecially from the loudmouth right-wing moralist who are always braying about "personal responsibility."

Somehow I doubt this is happening. Did anyone listen to Rush today?

[Occulus]

8. See, but

"Driving a car is a lifestyle choice. Nobody forces you to drive; in fact, it's a privilege. Disabled persons who could become a danger our children while on the road shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car."

Just you wait. I bet someone here will learn of this being said somewhere.

[CO Liberal]

2. Just One Diabetic - JANKLOW!!!!!!

He needs to spend some time in the Grey Bar Hotel.

[JackSwift]

3. Being run down by a diabetic is just a risk of motorcycling

and diabetics must be allowed to run down people reckless and stupid enough to ride motorcycles. Heck, it's about the only perk of diabetes. (If you don't count having sterile needles handy for your other habits.)








For the thinking impaired, the above is sarcasm.

[wuushew]

4. This is a stupid defense

Janklow has a bad record on driving going back years and years. If he wasn't a politician he would be in jail by now. His diabetes is a recent event, his behavior is not and has been habitual.

[SoCalDem]

7. There was doubt earlier today about the admissibility of prior

violations..:(

[DrBB]

5. When I was diagnosed w/Type I

...I was 28, a driver, and I was told in no uncertain terms that if I had an accident because of an insulin reaction, my condition was NOT a legal defense. So I don't know what Janklow thinks he's doing with this crap.

Further, this issue of diabetics being allowed to drive has in fact been raised in state legislatures repeatedly over the years. I don't know the full legal history, but I don't believe any states have made insulin dependence a disqualification for a driver's license.

But this asshole using it as his defense raises the issue once again, to the detriment of the rest of us responsible diabetics.

[ignatius]

24. Hi there DrBB, I was diagnosed as a type I 8 years ago. I know

the warning signs and immediately pop candy,soda,or something major league sweet into my mouth and carry candies with me always.

What a bastard this man is, all diabetics in the country need to tell him to kiss our collective asses.

[diamond14]

31. you are correct, there is a long history of denying people with

diabetes the right to drive a car, and often denying them a right to work.....

and those rights will not be denied because of this single case, more likely, they will take away a driver's license, but only until a medical doctor confirms that he is not a danger on the highways (and that was likely done by the doctor who failed in this case)...it has been many years since ronald reaguns FIRED all air traffic controllers with diabetes....reaguns was guilty of blanket discrimination...that discrimination was a major part of passing the "Americans with Disabilities Act"...and it saddens me greatly that DUers are having fun discriminating here....

here is a good link to for background on this type of discrimination
it is NOT illegal to drive with diabetes...it is NOT illegal to have an insulin reaction while driving, and in most cases, it is the fault of medical advisors, insulin manufacturers, and as shown on another thread on this subject, the fault of Federal regulations for medicines....

Fighting discrimination based on Diabetes....
http://www.diabetes.org/community/advocacy/discrimination.jsp

here is some case history on 'Diabetes and Driving'....it's just so sad that it takes lots and lots of money and effort for each state to overthrow discrimination....people with diabetes have such massive medical expenses and healthcare is failing them completely, it's amazing that any can even get through the expensive court process and stop discrimination
http://www.diabetes.org/community/advocacy/drivers_discrim.jsp

[camero]

39. And they still discriminate

Look at the Albertson's case that went to the SCOTUS where the majority said work is not a major life activity.

The dumbest decision in a case since Bush v. Gore and the one where they said that money is speech.

[diamond14]

42. true, right on this thread too..and if you call them on it...they attack

you vehemently...it's very sad to see DUers acting like this...I suspect it is often because the disease inconveniences some healthy people, so they attack those who suffer....

very similar to elder-abuse by their own families, or racial discrimination...abuse of people with diabilities continues, and those who perpetrate it continue to justify their actions and words....


don't let them get away with it...

FIGHT discrimination based on diabetes....
http://www.diabetes.org/community/advocacy/discrimination.jsp

[SoCalDem]

43. My husband's diabetes does NOT "inconvenience" me in any way

Where is all this abuse?? I have NEVER seen it..

[camero]

45. I liken it to domestic violence

Another thing which can be supposedly "controlled". If anyone has or knows someone with diabetes, I shouldn't have to say that that person is in the fight of his or her life. It's a 24 hr a day disease. There is no respite, no remission, none.

If I see someone who is in danger from anything, I'm doing something about it and I am not fucking around about it.

If more people cared for human life and not just about "control" issues, the world would be a much better place.

And all this focus on "personal responsibility" has gotten so far out of hand that there is no room for mistakes. Oh, like they are not human? From Mars maybe?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. Do you have 12 citations for speeding in your driving record?

[camero]

65. No, I have 3

The point being you do not abandon someone in an emergency or blame the victim when something happens that they don't have 100% control of. This is not the case with Janklow but the point should be made.

[JailBush]

6. The prosecuting attorney should argue that Janklow apparently

has a history of diabetic homicide, hit and run and rape. Therefore, he should be aware of his condition and acted with criminal negligence when he didn't take care of himself before getting behind the wheel.

[Khephra]

9. Many family members of mine are diabetic

so this shouldn't be taken as an attack on them....

but he's not the first person to use this disease as a defense for lousy driving skills.

I once had the "pleasure" to meet this guy who was diabetic...and had been arrested for reckless driving more than 30 times. He was actually proud of the fact that they'd just keep on arresting him for his driving, but that he'd just keep on getting off because of his disease.

[monkeyboy]

11. That doesn't make sense

People who have seizures have their license yanked until a doctor gives the OK. Same should apply to diabetics. (And I've been on the needle for 18 years) Your friend should have had his license taken away after the first offense. If he gets it under control, he gets his license back.

[diamond14]

29. some are just lying to diss those with diabetes, or others with

disabilities...that's the sad reason why the "Americans with Disabilities Act" had to be enacted...too many people have too much fun wrecking the lives of people with disabilities...the least able to defend themselves, cut their medical care, and let them die...big time bullying....

IMO, some healthy people just hate the fact that people with disabilities sometimes excel despite all odds....successful people with disabilities make healthy people look so small, when they have so little to overcome, and can't do as well...so they just diss others....makes them feel BIG.....usually this bullying is done by healthy people who fail in their own careers, or relationships, and need a scapegoat....

it's very similar to racial discrimination...and the current climate of degrading women, especially legislatively....big big bullies...picking on those least able to defend themselves...

[T Bone]

10. oh please Janklow has not missed too many meals

?

Look at the guy. I heard that report too. He had not eaten all day ?
Oh really, sorry, he just doesn't look like the type of guy who misses too many meals to me. I bet if the prosecution checks out his day that day in detail they can find a witness who saw him shoving mass quantities down his pie hole.

[gratuitous]

12. Janklow's using this as a defense because . . .

He doesn't have much else. If he tries to say that the accident was an aberration, the prosecuting attorney gets to use his prior driving record to impeach that assertion. So he needs something else, and denigrating the entire diabetic community in order to try to save his own skin obviously doesn't bother him. Naturally, if the prosecutor puts on a doctor or two, he can establish that Janklow's defense is a load of horse manure, and get the jury instructed on that point.

It's similar to what happened to Michael Deaver, who was a big shot in the Reagan administration. He was nailed for influence peddling and corruption, and his defense was that he had a drinking problem, and didn't remember making all these lucrative, illegal deals, so please be merciful, your honor.

I thought, "Hot damn, now THERE's a defense that will be eagerly watched in cells across the country." There's hundreds of thousands of guys locked up who committed their special crimes while drunk or high, and a lot of them probably don't have any firsthand memory of what they did. If Deaver skates using his drunkenness as a defense, I foresee a whole lot of appeals being filed. Deaver's craven defense didn't fly, and I suspect Janklow's won't either.

[diamond14]

13. already litigated when ronald reaguns fired the air traffic controller

there will be little fall-out here....when ronald reagun decided that diabetes made a person unable to serve as an air traffic controller...many people stood up in outrage....

the matter was resolved many years later with back pay and re-instatement, and people with diabetes can now serve as air traffic controllers, police/firemen, bus drivers, semi-truck drivers and more....it is a disability civil rights issue that is already settled....

link to typical case involving people with diabetes and their rights to drive and work...
http://www.diabetes.org/advocacy/11-00.pdf



it's sad that many DUers are calling people with 'diabetics'...such language is unacceptable, calling people a disease...'diabetics' is also an adjective, so such language is grammatically in error...my hope is that DUers will stop degrading others by calling them a disease...do you also call those with cancer 'cancerics' ? or those with AIDS 'AIDics'...if find it repulsive to call those people diseases, why do you use 'diabetics'???

[SoCalDem]

15. Never really thought about it.. My husband is the one with it

and he says "diabetic" and so does his doctor.. :shrug:.. He is not offended by it..

[diamond14]

20. lighten his burden a little...change your tone...it'll start a very good

trend...diabetes destroys many relationships on many levels...your husband is probably just thrilled that you stay with him....diabetes creates many divorces...

many people with diabetes are abused by their own families (some call is elder abuse, others abuse their own children because of their own genetics and the time/effort/accommodations affecting the whole family...it's easier if you state that the person is just a disease)

you could lead the way, and especially bring it up to medical caregivers...who are trendsetters in this degradation of people with diabetes...and right off, start with a big blame game to excuse their own mistakes (typically it's your fault, you had an insulin reaction, when actually, any insulin reaction is a failure of medical care) and calling their patients a disease....

[SoCalDem]

34. huh??

My husband's diabetes is no different than if he was nearsighted or had a broken leg or whatever.. It's no big deal with us or any other people who have diabetes that we know.. And we DO know lots..

I have NEVER heard anyoone in our circle of friends (hundreds of people) ever have an issue with diabetes..And the people we know who are diabetic, refer to themselves the same way..diabetic.. :shrug:

The folks you know with it must be some real doozies :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Did his diabetes make him speed? They still have a hill to climb in that

defense since his blood sugar would be a cause to pull over, not to go faster. Blood sugar can cause a variety of symptoms butproving that it clouded his judgement can be easily overcome by a competent medical expert. Besides, it is all the more negligent for a diabetic to drink (wasn't there alcohol involved?) knowing that they have not eaten.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Correction apparently alcohol was not involved

[AlinPA]

16. I'm betting that he will go free, and all charges will be dropped.

I read inside Yahoo headline story,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=6&u=/nm/20031202/ts_nm/people_janklow_dc

that Daschle will testify for the defense,saying that Janklow missed meals. Then Janklow will run for the Senate against Daschle.

[maxanne]

17. of course he'll go free

he has never done any time for any of his crimes. He's a friend of the Bushistas.

[diamond14]

18. his pancreas, colon, and spleen were surgically removed. (link)

'innocent until proven guilty' used to be the American way, but here today, DUers prefer people suffering heart attacks, strokes, respiratory emergencies, and insulin reactions, while driving, will be locked up forever...the asscroft way....

-snips-

As recently as July — one month before the accident — the former state attorney general and four-term Republican governor's health was an issue.

Doctors considered double bypass surgery after tests found narrowing in Janklow's left main coronary artery but concluded it was part of his natural physical makeup. Instead of surgery, Janklow said he would take additional medications and try to lose weight.

But in 1998 and 1999, Janklow suffered life-threatening health problems and was treated at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., for diverticulitis and an inflamed pancreas.

"I have no spleen, no pancreas, and I'm missing most of my colon," Janklow said in December 2001.


http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2003/12/02/news/janklow/news919.txt

[gratuitous]

19. What??

"<T>oday, DUers prefer people suffering heart attacks, strokes, respiratory emergencies, and insulin reactions, while driving, will be locked up forever."

Where did anyone say anything of the sort? This seems to be an irresponsible distillation of what's been posted here. Your first attempt at hijacking the thread came to nothing; is this a second one?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Does he not have a duty to manage his blood sugar as well as possible

before getting behind the wheel of a car? My mother is insulin dependent and would never attempt to drive when her blood sugar is haywire. Those statements also contradict his statements in the article that he was in tip top health.

[camero]

40. Sometimes it can't be helped

Blood sugar has alot of variables (activity, diet, insulin type and timing, metabolism) and sometimes it just can't be helped. Noone has 100% control of their diabetes and if any person comes to post that they do, I'll come right out and call them a bloody fuckin liar. Because they are lying.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. Understood but one can pull over

I review the causes of thousands of accidents a year....rarely if ever are they caused by this scenario.

[camero]

47. Rarely but there are exceptions

Listen, I'm not defending him because I think his speeding is what caused it. But open up a little. Look at the LBN thread where I talked about my insulin reaction and the poster below.

Sometimes you can get to dangerous levels and feel perfectly normal.
hopefully, when I get to that level, noone will abandon me so that I won't have to drive.

My doc specifically asked me not to consider giving up driving for life just yet. And I have considered it and I'm 36.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Honestly I am not arguing that point and you hit the nail on the head

May I ask this? Does your blood sugar issue make you a bit more cautious in your approach to operating an automobile or do you drive as fast as ever knowing that the possibility of some incident leading to disorientation may occur?

[camero]

54. Yes

I try to set my times to drive around the time right after I eat because of the type of insulin I am on (70/30 type which menas you have to eat on time).

For a month before I found out I had diabetes, I was driving Over the road. I had blurry vision and i slowed down about 10 mph more than usual and kept ALOT more distance.

I just hope I never get to the point where I feel normal even at dangerous levels. And I think it will happen because my second reaction did not hurt. And it does hurt.

Like I said, I hope I don't get abandoned because I will be up the creek.

[camero]

55. I forgot

I drove 12,000 miles that month.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. Thanks you proved my point. You do slow down. YOu are more cautious

and you attempt to revise your driving habits around the time when you are at least less likely to have unstable blood sugar. My mother is on 70/30 and does the same thing. I would venture to guess you keep candy or orange juice handy and don't have 12 prior citations for speeding on your driving record and would probably avoid driving when you have not eaten? Correct?


I have not seen anyone but the news anchors cited in the opening post of this thread claim that drivers with disabilities should be discriminated against.

[camero]

66. I have crackers in the car and jelly beans in my pocket.

And it is my great hope that I always have this judgement because I think at some point, I am going to need a shot of glucagon to bring me back. With any luck, it will happen at home.

[camero]

67. In response to the second part of your thread

You should read this whole thread because there are some discriminatory statements whether the senders know it or not.

The LBN thread was much the same. And I first stated that I thought he was making an excuse. I still do but some of the comments have been particularly nasty.

[maxanne]

23. alcohol abuse

could cause those conditions. Isn't Janklow rumored to be a drunk?

[diamond14]

37. post #21 claims alcohol was NOT involved...your admit that you

are spreading rumors....faux-news in all it's glory, as you state

"isn't Janklow rumored to be a drunk?"....

[Malva Zebrina]

25. I have been reading lately

about the lowering of the bar on the diagnosis of diabetes. It seems that what used to be within normal limits on a fasting BG, is no longer normal. A fasting BG of 100, is now considered pre-diabetic whereas it used to be anything over 110 to 140. It may alert the person to be on the lookout as her life progresses, for a rise in that fasting number, but actually, what is really needed is a glucose tolerance test to determine the rate of return to baseline. In normal people who produce insulin, the rate of return after eating a high carbohydrate, high sugar meal is already beginning to come down after two hours, the peak--in a pre-diabetic, one may see a much longer drawn out decline before the return to baseline. So, already if one has a fsting of 100 and is now pre-diabetic--a test is ordered that significantly adds to the costs. There is no long term data on how many people who have a fasting of 100 eventually do develop diabetes. It will take years to record that data.


Seeing that the bar was also lowered on the diagnosis of diabetes from a fasting of 140, to today's 126, causing the numbers of persons diagnosed with diabetes to rise greatly, and the numbers of pills and all of the diagnostic tools, as well as doctor visits, nursing , foot care, and much else, It looks as though diabetes is another big moneymaker for the drug and related medical companies. I know that sounds a little flip, silly and nonsensical, but from what I know, a BG of 126-140 spread is very unlkely to result in any real severe complications, such as kidney or liver problems if one stays within those parameters.

Sadly, I simply do not trust much of any thing coming out of the corporated medical community. :-(

So I am wondering with this 100 fasting BG now lowered if those persons who do develop diabetes, will be in some way held accountable and eventually penalized for letting themselves get diabetes--ie they were overweight and they did not lose weight. Their fault!

I think I strayed off topic, sorry,

If Janklow is not taking insulin, or any of the oral meds for diabetes, he is in little danger of a hypoglycemic episode.

[diamond14]

35. wow, you want to deny medical care to people with pre-diabetes

conditions?

it's no longer 'let them eat cake' now it's just, 'let them die'

as marianne so succinctly put it...

"So, already if one has a fsting of 100 and is now pre-diabetic--a test is ordered that significantly adds to the costs."

wow !!!
Diabetes KILLS 200,000 Americans every single year...more than AIDS and breast-cancer combined...and you want to cut out a simple test...what arrogance....


DUers can stand up to this type of discrimination
check out this web link to see how you can help....

Fight discrimination based on diabetes....
http://www.diabetes.org/community/advocacy/discrimination.jsp

[SoCalDem]

36. amen.. you need to calm down..

The poster was probably referring to the fact that people with a lower threshhold are NOW being brought into the system in a big way.. therefore raising the profits of the HMOs & pharmaceutical companies..

I did not take their comments as a slam against the patients..

case in point.. The AMA just recently lowered the standard for high blood pressure.. Was it a safety measure to monitor patients?? One side effect was that a lot of people who never "had high blood pressure before" now do...

This sucks in many ways.. They are taking meds that they never took before, and they will now probably not be issued insurance that they may want or need , because of their "new" high blood pressure..

[diamond14]

38. direct quote "significantly adds to the costs."...when dealing with

the facts that diabetes KILLS over 200,000 Americans every single year, how can you arrogantly decide to cut out a single test based on 'significantly adds to the costs'....


the American Diabetes Association (ADA) a long-time advocate organization, fighting for the rights of people with diabetes, had to work very hard to get that....and now, some people want to deny the tests because of 'costs'....with people like you advocating, who needs enemies?



take a look at the reality of the tests for pre-diabetic conditions, and while you're at it...fight against discrimination based on diabetes....and stop calling people a 'disease', a throw-back to when people were degraded as 'cripples' or 'n*ggers' or other fully acceptable derogatory terms, just because you claim "hundreds" won't fight you on your right to call them a disease...why not help and stop putting up roadblocks...if you really cared about your husband, you would help, but I don't read that in your posts...

Fight discrimination based on diabetes....
http://www.diabetes.org/community/advocacy/discrimination.jsp

the TRUTH about pre-diabetes....and how YOU can save lives with one simple test...and stop the killing...Diabetes KILLS more than 200,000 Americans every single year, more than AIDs and breast cancer COMBINED...
http://www.diabetes.org/community/info_news/prediabetesrelease.jsp

[SoCalDem]

41. No one arrogantly advocated cutting out a test

The parameters were set lower to include MORE people .. THAT fact necessitated that MORE people would now have to buy costly drugs and might be prevented from getting the very insurance they might need..

The AMA keeps redefiniing "normal", and every time they do, they inadvertently? include a whole new batch of "drug company customers".. It's hard NOT to wonder if this is by design.. At the same time, they provide yet another excuse to deny people coverage or to charge them higher rates for insurance..

When a health care system is so blatantly "for profit", it's hard NOT to see a connection..

AGAIN... NO ONE HERE HAS ANYTHING AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DIABETES OR ANY OTHER DISEASE..NO ONE IS BLAMING THEM FOR ANYTHING...

[diamond14]

49. so should we cut out AIDS testing because of costs? don't you

advocate SAVING some of the 200,000 people who DIE from diabetes every year?...if more people would advocate for those suffering from diabetes, no one would need to deal with such ideas as yours

"that MORE people would now have to buy costly drugs and might be prevented from getting the very insurance they might need.."


gee whiz, just don't test them, because then, they might have to buy costly drugs...and of course, those costly drugs WILL keep them alive....yes diabetes is costly....it's a reflection of the healthcare crisis that just staying alive costs many thousands of dollars for every single person with diabetes, every year...but it is still cheaper than keeping a person alive with AIDS....

you wouldn't be the first person to advocate denial of medical tests for people in pre-diabetes stages (which always lead to diabetes within a few years as shown on previous links) or deny medical tests to people with full-blown diabetes....
----------------------------------------------------

healthcare costs have dramatically been shifted on to those who use the healthcare system the most, really subsidizing the uninsured on the backs of those who suffer from diabetes, rather than onto the general healthy population of America...that is why it is getting so expensive....if you don't have diabetes, it's a really good deal for you....

-snips-

The per capita annual costs of health care for people with diabetes rose from $10,071 in 1997 to $13,243 in 2002, an increase of more than 30%. In contrast, health care costs for people without diabetes amounted to $2,560 in 2002.

Represents 19% of total personal health care expenditures in the U.S. However, diagnosed diabetes patients account for only 4.2% of the total U.S. population.

http://www.diabetes.org/info/facts/facts_costs.jsp

[SoCalDem]

51. I T ..I S ..N O T..T H E ...T E S T ...

It's the LOWERING OF THE BAR as to what is considered NORMAL....:eyes:

[camero]

69. I agree with that

it's been lowered to 126 now. They don't want you to go any higher than 105. or they assume it as a pre-diabetic condition.

In any case, a glucose tolerance test is the only real way to tell if somone has diabetes or not and more doctors should do it when higher than 140, IMHO.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. This has nothing to do with a speeding maniac with a proven wreckless

driving record USING this defense. Nobody is advocating discriminating against the disabled but a few people are hallucinating that it is so.

Regardless if what his blood sugar was at the time of the accident he had been spotted speeding earlier that night and had been cited for it numerous times.

Now what would you like to obfuscate about?

[SoCalDem]

58. and.. his blood sugar will be a matter of record..

If it is NOT abnormally "off", his pitiful attempt at obfuscation will be seen as exactly what it is.. an attempt to AVOID "personal responsibility".. now WHERE have we heard that phrase..a million times??

[chookie]

26. These guys are shameless

Sorry Janklow -- but I don't buy this BS for a second. This is just desperation on the part of his legal team, because the man is guilty as charged.

Personal responsibility for you and me, but not for them -- once again.

Speeders and aggressive drivers are among my pet peeves. They make the road a dangerous, deadly place. Speeding is at record highs. No one seems to want to cooperate with their fellow life forms on the road anymore. It's gotten to the point where I really hate driving anywhere, because there are just too many nuts out there behind wheels. Janklow is one of those nuts, and his outrageous driving behavior caught up with him, resulting in the death of some poor guy, who died because of Janklow's recklessness and selfishness. Let the crackdown on maniacal drivers begin with him.

Highway fatalities, not related to alcohol, have dramatically risen over the last 5 years. Hell -- look at SUVs -- one of the reasons they are so popular is because people perceive them to give a higher margin of survivability in a crash! I think it is high time that local governments begin to crack down on aggressive drivers and speeders, because they are a danger to innocent people.

Janklow should be happy I am not the judge presiding over his case, because I would throw the book at him.

I don't think this applies to this irresponsible homicidal goof (Janklow) but there are people with medical conditions out there who should not be driving, and I wish they would choose not to. There was a high profile case here in Pittsburgh, of a man with a seizure condition, who has been in numerous accidents, who eventually killed a pregnant woman and her mother, who has gotten off scot free. Again -- he's lucky I am not presiding over his case. I know someone --very sad situation -- who lives in CA and who is unemployed and has no med insurance, who has epilepsy, and has had a number of crashes -- but still drives.

I know it is very hard to get around most of the USA, and I sympathize with people who feel they have to drive even if they are impaired, but I sure hate the idea of perishing in a fiery crash or being crippled for the rest of my life because someone with a seizure disorder or other medical impairment is knowingly driving a car.

That being said -- first things first -- I believe speeders and aggressive drivers are a FAR more urgent and important problem to society than the small minority of people who have challenging medical conditions.

[diamond14]

28. "with seizure disorder or other medical impairment is knowingly driving"?

never forget this little factoid....at some time in most Americans lives, they too will have the opportunity of suffering from a disability, either from old age, injury or disease....remember your own words when that opportunity arrives in YOUR life...

nasty discriminatory remarks sadden me...it this what America has come to: 'guilty until proven innocent' rather than the pre-asscroft 'innocent until proven guilty'....

BTW, people can be in many crashes which are the fault of other drivers....for example, I was hit three times in ONE year from behind, never my fault, in every case the other party got NUMEROUS tickets, in one case, I got out of my totalled car and SAVED the responsible parties life...three of my car totalled in one year and I survived...you should NEVER assume that people with disabilities are ALWAYS the responsible party in any crash...it could well be that others hit them from behind, and the crash had NOTHING to do with a disability....or do you prefer to discriminate because it makes you feel superior?

it is illegal to drive while drunk...it is NOT illegal to drive with diabetes or to have an insulin reaction while driving....it is NOT illegal to have a heart attack or stroke while driving, even if you are aware of your medical risk and are on medication....

....first they took the people with disabilities and I said nothing, and then they took the political activists and I said nothing, and then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak up.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. Fine if that is the case however his record of speeding prior to having

any issue with his blood sugar, combined with the fact that he still needs to explain (or his defense will need to demonstrate) how it is he was seen several miles before the accident speeding and didn't pull over remains a subject of inquiry as well.

I think you are creating an issue of disability where it has YET to be proven that any exists and it is still subject to scrutiny.

If this was an unfortunate accident due to unstable blood sugar so be it.

If he is HIDING his past history of basically what is tantamount to wreckless driving behind a facade of disability, that TRULY does MORE damage to those genuinely disabled since their rights are compromised by a chickenshit not wishing to be responsible for his wreckless driving habits.

[gratuitous]

32. Saying it again still doesn't make it true

Who here has said that Janklow or anyone is guilty until proven innocent? This looks like your third attempt to hijack this thread. Is there a reason?

[camero]

48. I wish other people around diabetics were as passionate

Alot would get done towards finding a cure. Some of these posts are dispicably aginst people with diabetes or show a big lack of education on the subject.

[diamond14]

52. agreed, there are very despicable posts here against people

with diabetes, some even coming from resentful families....

[gratuitous]

53. Well, since this thread wasn't about diabetes or its treatment

It appears that it has become so through a determined effort to obscure the original issue. No one here has said that Janklow is guilty until proven innocent, or made the blanket statement that that rule should apply to everyone with a medical condition. It's preposterous, but when I point that out, the only response I get is silence.

It's certainly poor behavior to make wild accusations without basis or foundation. It's even poorer behavior (one might almost use the "d" word) to fail to respond when called on that behavior.

You want to educate folks about diabetes? Start a thread. You want to talk about Janklow and his despicable defense tactics? This is the place.

[camero]

70. Then look at post #68

Because that is probably what is going to happen to him. The posters at the top started the ball rolling. I don't think he will be convicted of manslaughter but I do think he will have to give up his license. With that many speeding tickets, he's damn lucky he has it now.

[camero]

71. Oh, BTW

The title of the thread states...Should diabetics have a license?

Maybe you should change the title because that is exactly what came up. Nobody hijacked it.

[chookie]

72. ?

Sorry love -- I think you are over-reacting, rather reflexively at this point, because you attributed sinister meaning to my post that are simply out of line.

Again, ducky -- how do you know that my own life has not been touched by this? In fact it has, and it was pretty rotten. I fully understand the point of view of the immense inconvenience of not being able to drive -- and I stated this in my post, as well as how deeply I feel for people in this situation.

I have said nothing discriminatory -- sorry -- you're hearing this in your own head, and it is not doing your side of the argument justice by doing so.

The cases I outlined as examples of people who should not have been driving are pretty clear cut examples of personal neglience bordering on the criminal. I am not, as you seem to want to believe, advocating persecution of and prejudice towards persons with medical problems.

You also seem to have neglected to read the line I wrote in which I state that the dangers on the road caused by medically impaired drivers are minimal compared to the risks that speeders and aggressive drivers pose.

I know you feel passionately on this issue, but twisting my remarks around so you feel justified in feeling persecuted and abused is just plain wrong. I think you need to go and pick this argument with someone who *really* is interested in persecuting people with medical problems.

[leftofthedial]

27. no. only drunken republican serial chronic speeder reckless driving

diabetics.

[Hubert Flottz]

33. Maybe he was hangin' with Rushlimeball!

Laws are made for democrats to drive by and to live by! When you are perched high up on the Moral High-ground you are above the law of the land!

[gratuitous]

46. But back to the subject at hand . . .

Folks can be hijacked if they want, but as to the original intent of this thread:

It's unconscionable that Janklow is using diabetes as a post hoc rationalization for his criminal behavior. The upshot may indeed be some kind of uninformed jihad against people with all sorts of medical conditions, but Janklow doesn't seem to care about that. I recall in the Columbine massacre aftermath, the fact that the words "trench" "coat" and "mafia" got strung together resulted in some hysterical people trying to keep kids anywhere and everywhere from buying or wearing trench coats, and trench coats briefly became the mark of the superpredator in the public mind.

The hysteria may die down after Janklow is convicted (and let's hope it is so), but this defense ploy will almost certainly result in unwarranted misery for a lot of folks who are guilty of nothing.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. Um reading skills are a plus but deductive reasoning would be a valentines

You completely ignored his point and then posted some poppycock as though you were responding.

It has not been demonstrated that Janklow DID have this reaction and your own article that you posted above acknowledges that he did not test his sugar following the accident...i.e. TEST HIS BLOOD~!!!!!! Why would that be??? Think hard...the guy also has a drinking habit.

[AlinPA]

63. Is there anyone here who thinks Janklow will be found guilty?

To me its starting to sound like "GOP justice", i.e., money and political power win.

[SoCalDem]

64. I will be surprised if he is found guilty, but I guess anything's possible

I really feel for the family of the guy he killed .. No matter what the defense Janklow uses, nothing will bring him back..

I am surprised that Janklow did not resign, in order to "spend more time with his family".. GOPers have no shame, though, and he's probably sure that his pals in congress will go easy on him..

[camero]

68. There was one case just like this here about 5 mos ago

A man had crossed 3 lanes of traffic and hit 20 bicyclists. None were fatally injured thank god, but some were permanently.

The man who hit them was also a type 1 diabetic and the same debate ensued then as now.

He initially blamed his accident on a blackout but he showed a normal BS count at the hospital. He was convicted of reckless driving and had to give up his license. But he was not convicted of manslaughter.

That's why I am waiting to see the results of the blood work because it is possible that it will also come back normal.

Actually, bicyclists were getting part of the blame for that accident and it was no fault of theirs whatsoever.